Creationists, You (Hypothetically) Win!!!

[Neatras]

Within this thread, I'm willing to concede each and every sundry point made by Creationists in an attempt to debunk evolution. In here at least, you win! Not only discrediting evolution, but even going as far as to establish Creationism as the only plausible theory. Congratulations!

So, what's next? Why, the next step for any scientific theory. Testing out the wazoo, predictions, studies, and efforts made to improve our understanding of the magnificent reality before us. And despite its... *ahem* notable age, Creationism "Theory" currently doesn't seem to have much of reality mapped out in a way that suits our very skeptical needs. No firmaments to be found, after all.

But what matters isn't how you got here, it's what you do now. What will Creationism bring to the table? In what manner can Creationism explain reality in a way that benefits humanity, especially in ways that evolution just wasn't able to? I want details. After all, to discard a scientific theory, you have to replace it with a theory of equal or greater merit, one with explanatory power to match or exceed the predecessor.

So, Creationists... Let's get started.

By Creationist logic, what kind of fossils should we expect to see in different rock layers?
By Creationist logic, what explains the precision of endogenous retroviral relics in our genome that maps to near perfect similarity to other species'?
By Creationist logic, what methods for interpreting radioactive decay can we use for the purpose of improving industry?
By Creationist logic, what is the best method for preventing and countering viral mutation and ensuring the general health is secured? Any pharmaceutical nuggets of wisdom you can enlighten us with?
By Creationist logic, what mechanism causes/prevents novel traits from appearing in species over successive generations?

By Creationist logic, what can you possibly offer to science to make up for supposedly destroying evolution? When evolutionary theory has not only made successful predictions, withstood 150 years of debate, and even intertwined with geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry, and physics in such a fitting way that it makes itself out to be the only logical explanation for the diversity of life as we see it?

Creationists, I'm tired of beating around the bush. For far too long, I've heard people make the claims that all the evidence backs Creationism. But if it has even an iota of evidence to it, if it has any explanatory power to make predictions about reality as we see it, in ways that evolutionary theory simply can't match, then show it.

Otherwise, quit trying to call Creationism a scientific theory.

[Tart]

in reply to the first post, the topic of the thread... The creation story has explanatory power that I think is unmatched by any philosophy we have today... That is, it has explanation for an origins of consciousness and knowledge, for sin, for morality, what we know as "right and wrong"... Our lives as humans are dependent on these things. For example, if we cant really define objective morality, or the law, or freewill. If we dont have a valid foundation on a truth that establishes these things, then convicting criminals of crimes becomes arbitrary. And truth that establishes these things would just unravel...

The creation story, whether parable or literal i do not say. But it does have explanations needed for establishing truth in our societies today. It is an established foundation, a cornerstone, for our society.

"The bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go"~Father of Science, Galileo

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 69 by DrNoGods]

I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion. The mathematics of the basic genetic code "algorithm" is trivially simple. 4 bases combine into groups of 3 (codons) to specify an amino acid. This produces a total of 64 combinations (4 cubed) for specification of only 20 amino acids along with the start/stop codons (so some amino acids are specified by more than 1 codon). There is nothing complicated or advanced about this. The overall translation process is far more complicated as far as the specific biological steps from transcription to protein building at the ribosome, but the mathematics of the genetic code itself is dirt simple, and if it were to be written as a computer program it would be just a few lines of code. So if it is the mathematics of DNA that you are referring to (and you keep stressing the mathematics of all of this), then it is not complex at all.

Sorry I should have attributed those quotes- they were from Bill Gates and Richard Dawkins. After many years of programming I agree with both of them, you may have more experience in this field than all of us, but I'd say your description helps make our point.

The mathematics of our basic code is even more trivially simple- it is binary v the quaternary base used in DNA.*

* although it also uses a binary code presented by the nucleotide pairs which acts as a binary parity bit error checking system for the quaternary code... is this complex? well it is certainly sophisticated, as Gates notes, compared with our meager efforts.

But again it's not about 'complexity' the random pile of rocks is complex, and the toy castle made of blocks is much simpler. It's about information- specifically specified information in a hierarchical system-

that is obvious. But how it relates to whatever point you are making regarding evolution and DNA is not clear. What, specifically, mathematical aspects of biology and DNA are you referring to, and how does it relate to ToE and intelligent design? Just saying that the same mathematical rules apply to various subjects is too vague to extract a debate point from.

well, there is way too much to detail in a post- but again if you at least accept the striking similarities in logical and mathematical structure, we can recognize a very specific phenomena, a hierarchical information system which entails many unique fingerprints.

The question is how such a system arose, & we only have one PROVEN mechanism by which such systems CAN arise. Beyond that, it's not just that spontaneous self-organization of such systems is unobserved, it is mathematically highly problematic- for the same reason a chimp writing War & Peace, the odds against are beyond astronomical

briefly looking at another point: One idiosyncrasy of a system being hierarchical is that different types of changes can only occur at different levels. janitors being replaced at Microsoft will not not effect the company's marketing strategy... or closer in analogy- tweaking the text parameters in this forum software can never create new forum software. Same is true in biology- certain control genes that affect superficial features cannot re-wire genetic regulatory systems to create new body plans.

But one thing we can do in the case of proteins is prove that they are indeed made of strings of amino acids, and we can literally follow the entire process from transcription via RNA in the nucleus to production of the protein at the ribosome. So there is no debate as to whether or not this happens as we think it does because it can be observed, and your point reduces to an argument that the correct ordering (for a specific protein) of base pairs on a section of DNA comprising a gene is astronomically improbable and so therefore is not likely to arise by chance alone.

Correct, pre-existing information is required to guide this process, and this is of course only one single example of organization in countless which all compound each other's improbabilities.

What is the probability that these kinds of structures could form by random chance if you tossed all of the relevant atoms and molecules into a bin and let them sit there for some period of time? Astronomically small. But when they grow slowly due to the way chemical bonds form between the atoms these structures arise naturally without any intelligent design, due purely to the laws of chemistry. There is no "intention" of the atoms to create symmetric structures that humans find appealing, but they do via this slow growth process because of how the atoms arrange themselves for bonding. When that mechanism is considered, the probability becomes 1.

agreed, and there is no 'intention' of each digital bit in your device to relay this message to you, or in the hand of a watch to tell the time, they are compelled to do so- by predetermined information and design, not by chance.

i.e. automated function ≠ automated origin, the opposite argument can be made at least as well- again the only proven origin behind any automated system IS intelligent design.

of living organisms and examine their DNA/RNA (or an RNA precursor) and ask how that may have come about. Evolution tells us how we got from there, to here

I take your point but disagree, even hypothetically and generously granting the first replicator as fluking itself into existence. Vast amounts of new information was required to build the bodies of cambrian animals with completely different design architecture.

and we don't yet know enough specifics about whatever was the very first life forms on earth to examine the complexity (or not) of it's genetic code. But that doesn't "verify" any intelligent designer behind those first creatures ... we just don't know yet exactly what they were or how their genetics worked to compare to modern life forms.

and so how does this ambiguity 'verify' an unintelligent cause? can we at least end, for now, in agreement that we do not have a materialist explanation for the origins of life?

In which case alternative theories are perfectly valid to explore?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 71 by Guy Threepwood]

can we at least end, for now, in agreement that we do not have a materialist explanation for the origins of life?

Yes ... no one claims to know (yet) the exact mechanism for how life first appeared on this planet. But when this is sorted out, I'm convinced it will just add to the already overwhelming evidence in support of ToE (eg. just like genetics did when it confirmed many results from the fossil record).

You're fighting a losing battle I'm afraid ... ToE with mountains of supporting evidence over 150+ years, vs. the postulated existence of an intelligent designer of some sort with zero evidence ever produced that such an entity actually exists. With so many different descriptions of this supposed designer, have you settled on one in particular? If so, why is your designer the "right" one and all the others are imposters?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 72 by DrNoGods]

Yes ... no one claims to know (yet) the exact mechanism for how life first appeared on this planet. But when this is sorted out, I'm convinced it will just add to the already overwhelming evidence in support of ToE (eg. just like genetics did when it confirmed many results from the fossil record).

You're fighting a losing battle I'm afraid ... ToE with mountains of supporting evidence over 150+ years,

You could argue that claim with many esteemed scientists, and the Royal Society, arguably one of the most prestigious scientific institutions in the world.
The tide of evidence against ToE has gotten so overwhelming that they recently held a meeting to try to solve it's mounting problems

from their overview:
"Developments in evolutionary biology and adjacent fields have produced calls for revision of the standard theory of evolution"

they were not successful.. yet, and my 'bold prediction' is that they will continue not to be

vs. the postulated existence of an intelligent designer of some sort with zero evidence ever produced that such an entity actually exists. With so many different descriptions of this supposed designer, have you settled on one in particular? If so, why is your designer the "right" one and all the others are imposters?

No not particularly, there are many possibilities, I'm principally skeptical of chance driven explanations- but pretty open otherwise. So have you settled on any particular mechanism? & any luck finding evidence for that yet?!

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 73 by Guy Threepwood]

they were not successful.. yet, and my 'bold prediction' is that they will continue not to be

Successful at identifying refinements? The process of refining scientific theories is part and parcel of the scientific method. It is how things iterate to get to more complete descriptions as new information becomes available, and is common to all fields of science. Nothing unusual about this.

I'm principally skeptical of chance driven explanations.

Ignoring natural selection again? The mechanism I've settled on is ToE, which includes random mutations AND natural selection (which is not chance driven), and which has a great deal of supporting evidence. So far, no one has come up with a better explanation (me being principally skeptical of supernatural being explanations, given that no such beings have ever been shown to exist in any form).

[Goat]

[Replying to post 42 by DrNoGods]

Natural selection controls evolution. If a species has no "pressure" to change, there's no reason to expect that it would change. Evolution does not require a species to change over time simply because time has passed. Likewise, natural selection can result in relatively rapid changes over short periods of time if the environmental pressure is significant, and/or sudden, requiring adaptation or death. So the fact that a species may be static for millions of years is not a knock against ToE, and in fact is perfectly compatible with it.

If an office memo looks identical after millions of copies, you know it's coming from a master copy

& if the Memo suddenly changes to provide an entirely different function, requiring a lot of new specific information, you know it's not just a mistake.

This is a false analogy. Biology doesn't work that way.

One example is bacteria evolving to survive against antibiotics ... perfect example of evolution at work.

ToE claims that a bacteria-like single celled organism evolved into a human being.


This example is of a bacteria 'evolving' into a ...bacteria. that leaves a little bit to the imagination does it not!?[/quote]

Why, you don't seem to understand the time scales involved, and the fact that it got there, one tiny step at a time. The step after a single celled animal would have been a colony held togather. The same substance that holds a colony of bateria together just so happens to be what hold other animals cells together.. that is not a cooincience. THen, you get specialized members of a colony... which then get into a multi cellular animal, such as a hydra. THat's the start.. of course, you have a few hundred million years to work with.\

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 75 by Goat]

Why, you don't seem to understand the time scales involved, and the fact that it got there, one tiny step at a time.

Curiously, they have no problem with a single cell building itself into a fully formed human being in nine months, but somehow small incremental changes in organisms over millions of years to produce new species is just too big a stretch. Go figure.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 71 by Guy Threepwood]

But again it's not about 'complexity' the random pile of rocks is complex, and the toy castle made of blocks is much simpler. It's about information- specifically specified information in a hierarchical system-

How do you know that the pile of rocks is random? As I explained to you before, I got that photo from an online store. As in, from a store selling those rocks. Meaning that very likely, they had a photographer arrange those rocks as they are in the photo. Even if all he did was empty a bag of rocks onto the ground, that photo is still the product of an intelligent designer.

agreed, and there is no 'intention' of each digital bit in your device to relay this message to you, or in the hand of a watch to tell the time, they are compelled to do so- by predetermined information and design, not by chance.

And if, while standing at the bottom of a cliff, a large stone falls on your head and kills you? Is that necessarily by a 'predetermined information and design'?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 73 by Guy Threepwood]

from their overview:
"Developments in evolutionary biology and adjacent fields have produced calls for revision of the standard theory of evolution"

From that headline, I'm not seeing where they're saying they have to chuck it out, go with intelligent design.
The theory of evolution does change from time to time. As DrNoGods opined up above, genetics confirmed ToE, so this was added to the theory, and what was taught about the theory was updated.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 74 by DrNoGods]

Successful at identifying refinements? The process of refining scientific theories is part and parcel of the scientific method. It is how things iterate to get to more complete descriptions as new information becomes available, and is common to all fields of science. Nothing unusual about this.

not so much a 'refinement' no, but an overhaul of the entire 'modern synthesis' of evolution

we could arguably label quantum mechanics as a 'refinement' of classical physics, but similarly it recognized that in the light of new science, a long standing conventional theory was fundamentally inadequate to explain reality.

Ignoring natural selection again?

absolutely yes, because natural selection is not the problem- nobody debates that a superior design will out perform an inferior one.

The problem is and always has been- the arrival of the fittest, not the survival. And this was the focus of the conference and the controversies in modern evolutionary biology in general

The mechanism I've settled on is ToE, which includes random mutations AND natural selection (which is not chance driven), and which has a great deal of supporting evidence.

And this is where you would find yourself in disagreement with the organizers of that meeting and many other secular scientists

They recognize the same problem we are discussing - the standard theory, random mutation and natural selection has no theory of the generative. Gerd B Mueller- this is no 'small detail' they are grappling with

This does not mean you have to start going to church! Just as when steady state was debunked, atheists did not have to fall to their knees and renounce atheism. It would mean however that skeptics were right- pure blind luck does not have the creative capacity to introduce every design chance necessary from a single cell to a human being.

There are still more options than ID, but that is at least still in the running- blind chance is falling behind in the race here

So far, no one has come up with a better explanation (me being principally skeptical of supernatural being explanations, given that no such beings have ever been shown to exist in any form).

if you dig up the rosetta stone and conclude ID- is that a 'supernatural' explanation??